This makes me want to vomit. I am not kidding.

Big surprise that it was the replacement of O'Connor by Alito that made the majority decision.

As depressed as I'm feeling, though...we're not going to take this one sitting down, are we, ladies?

I honestly can't even process this. They going to have a field day. I can't believe Kennedy - he went procedural on an issue this big. Poor Ginsburg. Poor all of us.

Big surprise that it was the replacement of O'Connor by Alito that made the majority decision.

As depressed as I'm feeling, though...we're not going to take this one sitting down, are we, ladies?

I'm so proud we've come to the day where judges can overrule actual trained doctors over which procedures are medically necessary and not. (Major sarcasm).

This is so insane, but we knew it was coming. :(

Fuck.

Does anyone know what we're looking at now? My understanding of the law was that, since it outlaws a procedure that doesn't medically exist, there's a huge grey area. What, exactly, is banned under the law? That is going to make hell on earth for any doctor who is trying to practice meaningful, comprehensive ob/gyn care.

All the same, three cheers for Justice Ginsburg and her continued eloquence in defense of women's rights. I am glad she was the one chosen to speak for the dissent in the court statement.

So much for the 500 error indeed. Server...overload...too...many...posts...at once...

This is upsetting to say the least. I wish there was a way to make people understand what is in the power of the State, in the power of God, and the power of a doctor. And they are all different.

Horrifying. Absolutely horrifying. Once again, the politicizing of women's bodies has had incredibly bad effects.

I'm with Anna. What's this going to mean? What's going to happen in a practical sense? And how many women are going to suffer because of this?

So, in that gray area what all could be deemed illegal? Seems like anything involving a vagina, a doctor, and a fetus. There is no "partial birth abortion." Most of these procedures that fall into this category are performed in emergency contexts! S0, there's no way the rich could just fly off to Canada to get their own late term abortions. Women who want to have children could be rendered infertile because a Judge (5 judges) think that they understand the body better than doctors. This is madness, this is injustice.

One important note: This ruling leaves open the possibility of a sort of judicial bypass for an individual women who needed an intact D&E for her health. It doesn't say that a woman can never get an intact D&E for her health because she could go to court to challenge the constitutionality of the ban with respect to her particular case. But of course, this is kind of a ridiculous outcome, since by definition a health emergency does not allow enough time for such an individuialized court challenge.

Another way the constitutionality of the law might still be challenged is by an individual doctor who, in order to preserve his patient's health, performs an intact dilation and gets arrested.

Anyway, if I were a rebellious district court judge, I would set up a process now by which a doctor could get an immediate, lightening-fast injunction allowing him to perform the procedure if necessary.

Ridiculous. Justices who typically stand for states' rights have upheld a federal abortion ban - not to mention have gone completely against stare decisis. hypocrisy much?

I get text messages from saveroe.com, and I got one today at 7am...all it said was "bad news." I knew I could count on Feministing to tell me how bad. And, uh, it's bad. The good news is that coming here and reading everyon'es comments (and I'm sure there will be amny more to come) reminds me that there are a lot of strong feminists out there who aren't going to let the crazoids up in Washington get away with this shit.

Oh no. I have watched with some horror at the recent turn of events regarding abortion in the states and feel for you all today. I can only hope our pathetic British government does not do it's usual 'following like sheep' tack and change our abortion laws. There are already some murmurs of it happening. I'm with you in fighting feminist spirit from all the way across the pond in london. I shall vocally seethe for you all.

what?

holy fucking shit!

As I heard this on my way to work this morning, I wondered if it is considered road rage if you are mad at the things on the radio instead of the other drivers.

Another piece of evidence that my government does not respect me.

I think it should be illegal for any male legislator to make any decision concerning women's reproductive health. Were there no women who have experienced partial birth abortions speaking at this??? And what if someone needs this procedure, and will die without it, what the hell is she expected to do? Wait until her day of death because of some fetus??? I'M SO ANGRY!

what?

holy fucking shit!

I think it should be illegal for any male legislator to make any decision concerning women's reproductive health. Were there no women who have experienced partial birth abortions speaking at this??? And what if someone needs this procedure, and will die without it, what the hell is she expected to do? Wait until her day of death because of some fetus??? I'M SO ANGRY!

"His opinion said that courts could consider such claims "in discrete and well-defined instances" where "a condition has or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used."

This scares me the most because who knows what will be interpreted as well-defined instances. Also I'm guessing their idea of "likely to occur" is going to be a lot different than the woman who's life might be at stake.

Does anyone have any links to what this actually means for women (sans legalese)? I'm talking about in terms of access to abortion, types of abortion procedures still available or not available, gestational period that you cannot have any kind of abortion after, etc? Or have I just not found it on Planned Parenthood's web site?

I did find this op-ed piece from a woman who had an abortion at 18 weeks because of a severe neurological defect her fetus had. She says that if this ban were in effect then, she would not have been able to have the abortion. Is that correct?!

There is one person to blame for this outrage: Ralph Nader.

I would not think an abortion at 18 weeks would be a so-called "partial-birth abortion," would it? That's very early in the second trimester.

She says that if this ban were in effect then, she would not have been able to have the abortion. Is that correct?!

No, it's NOT correct. The PBAA only applies to one very rare procedure (IDX) which is not standard practice. Modifying the procedure slightly takes it out of the scope of the law.

The decision itself was very narowly crafted to fit under both Roe and Casey. The ruling was on one point, and the court left the door wide open to challenges on other grounds. In practice, very little changed.

No argument at all that legislators should not practice medicine. But the decision's real-world impact is being WAY overplayed.

She says that if this ban were in effect then, she would not have been able to have the abortion. Is that correct?!

No, it's NOT correct. The PBAA only applies to one very rare procedure (IDX) which is not standard practice. Modifying the procedure slightly takes it out of the scope of the law.

The decision itself was very narowly crafted to fit under both Roe and Casey. The ruling was on one point, and the court left the door wide open to challenges on other grounds. In practice, very little changed.

No argument at all that legislators should not practice medicine. But the decision's real-world impact is being WAY overplayed.

Ah, HTML intact dilation and extraction (IDX). That helps immensely, Tully. Thank you!

Every law passed or upheld that chips away at our right to abortion in the U.S. is cause for alarm and action, but indeed, I wonder if the real-world impact of this decision may be relatively small. According to that Wikipedia article, this abortion procedure represents .17% of all abortions in the U.S. (as of 2000 according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute). Still, that means that in future, those .17% of women won't be able to get an abortion, which is surely for rather horrendous reasons (i.e. fetus is brain dead, mother has late-stage cancer and needs to go through chemo ASAP).

Tully I disagree slightly. Though it is a very narrowly crafted decision, IDX, when used, is used often because of concerns about a mother's health or complications. I do not think that taking this option off the table for Dr.'s to preform in high risk circumstances is OVERPLAYED.

Carolina Girl- the procedure does not have to do with the age of the fetus. It is often performed on fetuses after 18 weeks, but the procedure relates to whether the fetus is partially removed from the womb before termination, instead of in the womb. It is not explicitely "late term".

man, i'm SOOO glad i've already scheduled sterilization...i guess looking into moving to the home country in a few years wouldn't be all that bad an idea, either, at least for my kids... i can't believe i'm having to consider that kind of shit...

I am absolutely devasted. As a pregnant woman, I feel degraded--like I've been told that my body only holds worth in terms of my pregnancy.

Where do we go from here?

"Does anyone have any links to what this actually means for women (sans legalese)?"

I don't have links, but this is my take on the options:

1) Get a different kind of late-term abortion than the banned procedure.
2) Get an intact D&X procedure, but kill the fetus first with an injection. Apparently, this is not possible in some cases.
3) A woman who still wants (or needs) the banned procedure without first killing the fetus will have to go to court first to get the judge to say that her constitutional right will be violated if she does not get it. This is obviously impractical in emergencies
4) The doctor can go ahead an perform the banned procedure. If arrested, the doctor can challenge the constitutionality as applied to his case.

I am absolutely devasted. As a pregnant woman, I feel degraded--like I've been told that my body only holds worth in terms of my pregnancy.

Where do we go from here?

I just remembered a piece from Ms. Magazine, written in the Summer of 2004 (right after Bush signed the PBA ban), about one woman's personal experience with D&E. This seems to affirm what sunburned counsel wrote above, that this ban may affect the accessibility (already severely limited), of D&E for women for whom this is the safest medical option--regardless of when the procedure is performed.

Another piece of evidence that my government does not respect me.

I think that, almost regardless of the day-to-day legal impact (in a world where an abortion is already extremely difficult for most women to obtain), this ruling is an emotional punch in the gut. It feels indicative of a wider political curtailment of women's reproductive rights, and of respect for us as rational, ethical decision-makers.

For anyone in DC, PPFA is having a rally at 3pm in front of SCOTUS. Come down and be angry in public.

fucked. up.

So angry, and devastated at this decision, both for the practical impact it will have on women, and for the long-term legal impact it will have (which, of course, then will have a practical impact on women).

So, what do we do? Other commenters have said that we won't take this sitting down, that we act, etc. What concrete things can we do? Planned Parenthood wants money, and I don't have it to give. What other ways can we organize or act?

Wish I could leave work and get to SCOTUS by 3:00. Sadly, have to stay out here in Fairfax.

So angry, and devastated at this decision, both for the practical impact it will have on women, and for the long-term legal impact it will have (which, of course, then will have a practical impact on women).

So, what do we do? Other commenters have said that we won't take this sitting down, that we act, etc. What concrete things can we do? Planned Parenthood wants money, and I don't have it to give. What other ways can we organize or act?

Wish I could leave work and get to SCOTUS by 3:00. Sadly, have to stay out here in Fairfax.

So angry, and devastated at this decision, both for the practical impact it will have on women, and for the long-term legal impact it will have (which, of course, then will have a practical impact on women).

So, what do we do? Other commenters have said that we won't take this sitting down, that we act, etc. What concrete things can we do? Planned Parenthood wants money, and I don't have it to give. What other ways can we organize or act?

Wish I could leave work and get to SCOTUS by 3:00. Sadly, have to stay out here in Fairfax.

So sorry about the double post... I got an error message, so I thought the first one hadn't gone through.

Sunburned, the only real change in actual clinical procedure will likely be that the fetus will be killed before extraction instead of during. A matter of one injection and an extra 30 or 60 seconds. Once that happens, the law no longer applies.

There are also other available procedures. IDX really is rare--from personal knowledge of the field I believe that Guttmacher Institute is vastly overestimating the actual incidence of "live" IDX in placing it as high as even 1 in 1000 abortions. The real-world net result will be that perhaps a few dozen women a year will undergo slightly riskier procedures--with zero reduction in overall abortion rates.

And the state medical review board that won't back up an "emergency medical neccesity" defense in any but the grossest of pre-planned and knowing violations for purely contraceptive reasons is a rare board indeed. As is the high-risk maternal/fetal team that would deign to notice and notify anyone of anything but such a blatant violation.

Legislatures really shouldn't practice medicine. They're no good at it.

All Im really saying is, don't panic. It's not nearly as significant as either camp is making it out to be.

This was posted a few months ago, but I think it's worth repeating- George W. Bush from his Jan 2007 State of the Union Address:

"In all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors."

George W. Bush from his Jan 2007 State of the Union Address:

"In all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors."
Didn't you get the memo that the statement only applies to issues that will help raise his approval rating?

This is absolutely ridiculous. To those that say it's not that big of a deal, practically: maybe so, but it's definitely a giant deal symbolically. A. Because Congress and the Court are a group of lawyers making medical decisions they have no business to be meddling in, after disregarding medical testimony, B. Because this signals to anti-choicers, "Hey, we can get this type of abortion challenge through!" Who knows what other aspect of it they'll attack next, and before anyone can blink, they'll be overturning Roe completely.

I can't believe CNN waited until 2pm to post a headline about this, and then three hours later, took it off their front page and replaced it with such inane articles as "Horses may be doped up for Stones concert," "Zoo asks visitors not to stare at the chimps," and three useless videos about the VTech tragedy that revealed absolutely no new information. Ugh.

Addressing some GIANT misconceptions:

1. The ban does NOT apply when the woman's life is at risk. Read it.

2. The ban ONLY applies to a living fetus. If she miscarries, she is not obligated to have the dead baby inside of her. Read the ban.

Oenophile,

it does apply even when the mother's health is at risk.
Which means that this procedure is not open to a woman even if a doctor thinks that any other procedure is going to cause the woman to become infertile.
Even if the mother is not obligated to have a dead fetus inside her, it doesn't make exceptions for cases where the fetus is horribly malformed and will die a painful death one month to two years outside of the mother's body.

The procedure in question is not used by woman who wake up eight months pregant and say "shit, I need an abortion!" It is an agonizing decision made by a woman and her doctor when something goes horribly wrong with the pregnancy. The child is wanted, but in order to save the mother's fertility for any future children, the doctor may want to use this procedure.

Oenophile,

it does apply even when the mother's health is at risk.
Which means that this procedure is not open to a woman even if a doctor thinks that any other procedure is going to cause the woman to become infertile.
Even if the mother is not obligated to have a dead fetus inside her, it doesn't make exceptions for cases where the fetus is horribly malformed and will die a painful death one month to two years outside of the mother's body.

The procedure in question is not used by woman who wake up eight months pregant and say "shit, I need an abortion!" It is an agonizing decision made by a woman and her doctor when something goes horribly wrong with the pregnancy. The child is wanted, but in order to save the mother's fertility for any future children, the doctor may want to use this procedure.